|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 15:29:34 GMT -5
However, if you refuse to check outside sources and view their opposing views and the reasons behind them as immaterial, how can you properly discuss some of these subjects with peope like me from the Protestant persuasion? Yes, I know it's my third response to your question ... but it's the one I should have used earlier. You have asked me about Catholic teaching. Jesus promised us faithful and true teaching - through His Apostles and handed down thru their successors - somewhere the church entrusted with teaching the doctrine of the Apostles that doesn't change still exists. Matthew 28 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Which means Jesus promised to be and IS with His (teaching) church; to the end of the age.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 15:46:26 GMT -5
However, if you refuse to check outside sources and view their opposing views and the reasons behind them as immaterial, how can you properly discuss some of these subjects with peope like me from the Protestant persuasion? Yes, I know it's my third response to your question ... but it's the one I should have used earlier. You have asked me about Catholic teaching. Jesus promised us faithful and true teaching - through His Apostles and handed down thru their successors - somewhere the church entrusted with teaching the doctrine of the Apostles that doesn't change still exists. Matthew 28 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Which means Jesus promised to be and IS with His (teaching) church; to the end of the age. StAnne ~ Thank you for clarifying that point with me. However, doesn't "catholic" mean "universal church" from scripture and refers to Christian doctrine being preserved and passed down through the ages by those who followed the apostles' teachings? However, I do realize that the Roman Catholic Church had a lot to do with the original canons being retained down through the years, for which we all hold a debt of gratitude.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 15:58:02 GMT -5
Yes, I know it's my third response to your question ... but it's the one I should have used earlier. You have asked me about Catholic teaching. Jesus promised us faithful and true teaching - through His Apostles and handed down thru their successors - somewhere the church entrusted with teaching the doctrine of the Apostles that doesn't change still exists. Matthew 28 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Which means Jesus promised to be and IS with His (teaching) church; to the end of the age. StAnne ~ Thank you for clarifying that point with me. However, doesn't "catholic" mean "universal church" from scripture and refers to Christian doctrine being preserved and passed down through the ages by those who followed the apostles' teachings? However, I do realize that the Roman Catholic Church had a lot to do with the original canons being retained down through the years, for which we all hold a debt of gratitude. Okay. So how can you say that other churches are in agreement on what is to be taught when it's more than evident they have broken away from each other in numerous, numerous disagreement on doctrinal teachings? Look at the ten of thousands of numbers of different churches ... How can other churches follow the Apostles teachings when they weren't there - and don't know or have the Sacred Tradition of ' Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' ... They can't. However, doesn't "catholic" mean "universal church" from scriptureYes, it does. It is universal.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 21:05:05 GMT -5
If your god was murdered by the Jews, why should he be feared? That's some really bad theology and scriptural interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 19, 2013 21:07:20 GMT -5
If your god was murdered by the Jews, why should he be feared? That's some real bad theology and scriptural interpretation. I never was much into theology. Scriptural interpretation is.....well.....interpretation. I doubt that your men in robes do it any better than a meek and lowly layman.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 21:35:00 GMT -5
That's some real bad theology and scriptural interpretation. I never was much into theology. Scriptural interpretation is.....well.....interpretation. I doubt that your men in robes do it any better than a meek and lowly layman. If your god was murdered by the Jews, ... Addressing only the scriptural interpretation aspect - if the meek and lowly layman does it as well as the men in robes then we would expect the meek and lowly layman to know that the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus to die - and to acknowledge the role of the Roman soldiers in the crucifixion narrative.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 19, 2013 21:50:53 GMT -5
I never was much into theology. Scriptural interpretation is.....well.....interpretation. I doubt that your men in robes do it any better than a meek and lowly layman. If your god was murdered by the Jews, ... If that's true then we would expect a meek and lowly layman to know that the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus to die - and to acknowledge the role of the Roman soldiers in the crucifixion narrative. Now you've substituted Jesus for God. Your church blamed the Jews for killing God.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 22:01:08 GMT -5
Now you've substituted Jesus for God. Yes. Jesus is his name. I capitalize God when I'm referring to Jesus as my Lord and my God. And I will NOT do that argument with you - we've done that one a few times already. Your church blamed the Jews for killing God. No - but you sure did.
Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator or governor (not the "emperor") was the one who actually declared the death sentence (cf. Mt 27:2; Lk 3:1; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:24). (from phat catholic blog)
The Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixion.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 23:25:23 GMT -5
StAnne ~If Mary is not rated right up there in exalted status with Jesus, than why did the Popes call her a "co-redeemtrix" in their praise, as found in the article I cited earlier? Also, why do people pray through Mary instead of directly to Jesus, if there is no more need for a priestly representative to make supplications on our behalf? I will not be drawn into 'discussion' on numerous statements/questions from non-Catholic sources. I will, however, be happy to discuss one to one, and one at a time, from the Catholic perspective. Not in an attempt to convince necessarily, but to inform what the Catholic perspective really is. Much of what it isn't is presented in your post. This subject never got resolved from what I can see? However, I would like to present my own perspective on this matter and wonder if you would mind explaining to me and others why Mary was raised to the status of Co-redeemer within the Catholic Church? I'm beginning to understand that praying to dead saints who are considered alive in Heaven may be from the deleted books from the Bible, even though I don't share that belief? However, this matter of making Mary into a Co-redeemer and Co-mediator with Jesus really has me puzzled and I would like to know the reasoning of the RCC behind such a choice? Here is an article that gives the Protestant perspective on this subject of praying to Mary and her place as Co-redeemer with Jesus in Heaven. I feel the thoughts expressed in this article are is shared by most of the Protestant persuasion on this Board, besides myself? I just would like to know where in the Bible was such an honor established for the Mother of Jesus or was it an action by some Pope to give her such a position in the RCC? www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 23:44:42 GMT -5
I will not be drawn into 'discussion' on numerous statements/questions from non-Catholic sources. I will, however, be happy to discuss one to one, and one at a time, from the Catholic perspective. ( what is actually taught) Not in an attempt to convince necessarily, but to inform what the Catholic perspective really is. Much of what it isn't is presented in your post. This subject never got resolved from what I can see? However, I would like to present my own perspective on this matter and wonder if you would mind explaining to me and others why Mary was raised to the status of Co-redeemer within the Catholic Church? I'm beginning to understand the praying to saints who are considered alive in Heaven jfrom the deleted books from the Bible, even though I don't share that belief. However, this one of making Mary into a Co-redeemer with Jesus really has me puzzled and I would like to know the reasoning of the RCC behind such a choice? Here is an article that gives the Protestant perspective on this subject of praying to Mary and her place as Co-redeemer with Jesus in Heaven. I feel the thoughts expressed in this article are is shared by most of the Protestant persuasion on this Board, besides myself? I just would like to know where in the Bible was such an honor established for the Mother of Jesus or was it an action by some Pope to give her such a position in the RCC? www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.htmlAs I've said several times now - PM me - and include a Catholic source that says Mary is Co-Redeemer. Otherwise, (since you won't find one that says that) I'll be happy to discuss the titles by which she is known. By PM.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 23:51:18 GMT -5
This topic leads to another one that deals with papal infalliblity and I would like to know where such an idea originated, since we all are human and subject to making mistakes due to our inherited sin nature. Are we to believe that Popes are above this status due ot their position in the Church? Also, where in the Bible is this status given to any leader of the people. Even Moses had his weaknesses and was aware of them, however, he was chosen to lead the people out of Egypt and to the Promise land in spite of these weaknesses. Infallibility to me suggest perfect wisdom and understanding on all things and I cannot fathom how any human being can claim such a status before God and man. Please enlighten me as to the reason for this designation for the Pope over the Roman Catholic Church?
www.gotquestions.org/papal-infallibility.html
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 23:58:31 GMT -5
This topic leads to another one that deals with papal infalliblity and I would like to know where such an idea originated, since we all are human and subject to making mistakes due to our inherited sin nature. Are we to believe that Popes are above this status due ot their position in the Church? Also, where in the Bible is this status given to any leader of the people. Even Moses had his weaknesses and was aware of them, however, he was chosen to lead the people out of Egypt and to the Promise land in spite of these weaknesses. Infallibility to me suggest perfect wisdom and understanding on all things and I cannot fathom how any human being can claim such a status before God and man. Please enlighten me as to the reason for this designation for the Pope over the Roman Catholic Church?
www.gotquestions.org/papal-infallibility.html I will be happy to discuss this by PM as well. Have you been to catholic.com to first see what IS taught about papal infallibility? Since you mention Moses - you are aware of the (authority) of the chair of Moses, Mt 23:2? You might look for the significance of that too.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2013 0:06:24 GMT -5
This subject never got resolved from what I can see? However, I would like to present my own perspective on this matter and wonder if you would mind explaining to me and others why Mary was raised to the status of Co-redeemer within the Catholic Church? I'm beginning to understand the praying to saints who are considered alive in Heaven from the deleted books from the Bible, even though I don't share that belief. However, this one of making Mary into a Co-redeemer with Jesus really has me puzzled and I would like to know the reasoning of the RCC behind such a choice? Here is an article that gives the Protestant perspective on this subject of praying to Mary and the favored desire among Catholics to see her as Co-redeemer with Jesus in Heaven. I feel the thoughts expressed in this article are is shared by most of the Protestant persuasion on this Board, besides myself? I just would like to know where in the Bible was such a position of honor established for the Mother of Jesus or was it the intention by some Pope in the past to raise her to such a status within the Church? There seems to be a large consensus within the RCC presently of making it official? www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.htmlAs I've said several times now - PM me - and include a Catholic source that says Mary is Co-Redeemer. Otherwise, (since you won't find one that says that) I'll be happy to discuss the titles by which she is known. By PM. StAnne ~ This was brought up recently under Pope John Paul II in 2000. There are a number of pretitions before Pope Benedict XVI at the present asking for approval of this measure. Are you not aware of the same? Here's the article for your information. If you check out this Wiki article on the same, it has been a subject of discussion within the RCC for a number of years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/05/the-mary-heresy-papal-support.html www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 20, 2013 0:10:37 GMT -5
Why PM?
Is proselytising more effective by PM?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2013 7:51:33 GMT -5
As additional proof of the movement within the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to elevate Mary as Co-Redemptrix within the Church, here is a list of shows and their topic description in the past on EWTN, Catholic TV, which dealt with this proposal in most recent years. Since this comes from past shows on Catholic TV, hopefully it will be acceptable as evidence of this proposed movement with the RCC? You can read more about this movement by hitting the different topic headings for a complete summary of each at the link below. Here is an excerpt from the second topic on this list in a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, recently retired Pope, that caught my attention today: www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/coredemedadv.HTM
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 20, 2013 8:25:44 GMT -5
Why PM? Is proselytising more effective by PM? Ah. Yes. Asked by the the one who likes to argue about Catholic - but then complains ... You are welcome to PM me too. As I have PM'd you in the past ... You or faune either one could PM to include the three of us ... your option.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 20, 2013 8:35:53 GMT -5
As I've said several times now - PM me - and include a Catholic source that says Mary is Co-Redeemer. Otherwise, (since you won't find one that says that) I'll be happy to discuss the titles by which she is known. By PM. StAnne ~ This was brought up recently under Pope John Paul II in 2000. There are a number of pretitions before Pope Benedict XVI at the present asking for approval of this measure. Are you not aware of the same? Here's the article for your information. If you check out this Wiki article on the same, it has been a subject of discussion within the RCC for a number of years. 1. Have you noticed yet that you are the only one claiming Co-Redeemer? The term is co-redemptrix. NOT co-redeemer. For good reason. 2. I would be quite surprised if there were petitions before Benedict XVI Emeritus - since he is no longer Pope. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2013 8:38:42 GMT -5
However, if you refuse to check outside sources and view their opposing views and the reasons behind them as immaterial, how can you properly discuss some of these subjects with peope like me from the Protestant persuasion? Yes, I know it's my third response to your question ... but it's the one I should have used earlier. You have asked me about Catholic teaching. Jesus promised us faithful and true teaching - through His Apostles and handed down thru their successors - somewhere the church entrusted with teaching the doctrine of the Apostles that doesn't change still exists. Matthew 28 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Which means Jesus promised to be and IS with His (teaching) church; to the end of the age. StAnne ~ I meant to ask this question earlier, but would like to bring it up again here. From what I have been reading from your Catholic site on the "infallibility of the Pope," it appears that your opinion above is based on this premise about the Pope down through the centuries to the present? Is this a reasonable conclusion on my part? www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 20, 2013 8:51:12 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I meant to ask this question earlier, but would like to bring it up again here. From what I have been reading from your Catholic site on the "infallibility of the Pope," it appears that your opinion above is based on this premise about the Pope down through the centuries to the present? And I responded to your question on papal infallibility. So again, I will not be drawn into open board discussion on papal infallibility only to have someone(s) complain that I am presenting too much Catholic ... Happy to discuss by PM.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2013 9:04:51 GMT -5
StAnne ~ This was brought up recently under Pope John Paul II in 2000. There are a number of pretitions before Pope Benedict XVI, recently retired (February 2013), asking for approval of this measure. Are you not aware of the same? Here's the article for your information. If you check out this Wiki article on the same, it appears to have been a subject of discussion within the RCC for a number of years. 1. Have you noticed yet that you are the only one claiming Co-Redeemer? The term is co-redemptrix. NOT co-redeemer. For good reason. 2. I would be quite surprised if there were petetions before Benedict XVI Emeritus - since he is no longer Pope. That's all. StAnne ~ I stand corrected by you on my use of terms above. I checked out Wiki today for an explanation of "co-redemptrix" and found this history on the same topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-RedemptrixI'm also aware that Pope Francis is now the reigning Pope in the Vatican. However, the articles I presented had reference to Pope Benedict XVI who retired, or rather resigned, in February 2013 of this year. www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/02/benedict-returns-to-vatican-to-live-side-by-side-with-pope-francis/I apologize for any discomfort my questions may have caused you and will gladly relay any future concerns to you personally via PM. However, the subjects I brought up for discussion I'm sure many on this Board would like answers to themselves, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 20, 2013 10:04:40 GMT -5
I am not personally discomforted. I am however respectful of the role of the Blessed Mother; and of the earthly steward established by Christ our Lord.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 12:26:07 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I mean no disrespect to your beliefs or Catholic teaching regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus. She played quite an important role in the Christian faith as being the one who carried the Christ child and gave birth to Jesus. After some further research form your own Catholic sources, I would like to present an article I read recently relating to her role as Co-Redemptrix within the Catholic faith. I hope this clears up any misrepresentation I may have caused by my own lack of knowledge regarding this term and wrong usage of words to describe her place earlier by using the term "Co-Redeemer" instead of "Co-Redemptrix" in our discussion above:
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 13:24:24 GMT -5
In addition to the last posting regarding the Co-Redemptrix role of Mary, I would like also to post the Catholic response to the main objection of this title, which does make sense to me as you review the earlier scripture references to the virgin birth and Mary's role within the gospels. Hopefully, this will clear up any misconception I may have caused earlier by my own lack of understanding of this Catholic title for Mary, the Mother of Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 14:40:32 GMT -5
It isn't obligatory.It is a small offering, a sacrificial gift, generally $5-$10 that goes to the support of the priest if the person is able to do so. A priest may not accept more than 1 per day, regardless of whether he celebrates Mass more than once in that day. You mean to tell me that only one donation of all the donations can be accepted that day by the priest?
What happened to all the other donation money of the day ?
Where does that money go?
How does the priest even intercede for someone who is already dead?
If the dead are already considered to be "saved," what does the priest have to do for them?
Money or no money- what is the point of the whole thing?
Dmmichgood ~ I have learned recently that the reason for these prayers for the dead has to do with Purgatory ~ the intermediary place where believers' works are tried and purified before they ascend to Heaven. This is alluded to in I Corinthians 3:11-15 and also in the Book of Wisdom and the Books of Maccabees, two of the seven (7) excluded books by the Reformation from the original canon. This was discussed earlier in this thread among other topics regarding sacred texts. I believe the Protestants refer to it as "the Bema Throne of Judgment" from my recent research on the subject? However, I'm just guessing at that conclusion from my readings. Here is a link to a discussion on this period of judgment that comes after this life: www.gotquestions.org/judgment.htmlAlso, here is an excellent article that goes more thoroughly into the concept of Purgatory and the many objections from people outside the RCC, some of which you noted above. This comes from a Catholic Answer site and covers the topic quite well, IMHO? www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 15:16:01 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ As discussed earlier in this thread, here are the books found in the Catholic Bible, compliment to StAnne, so as we can see the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles and placement of these O.T. books referred to above as the Apocrypha. (See Page 6 for reference.) Although they were not included in further Bible translations after the original KJV of 1611, it's a pity they were not added as an Appendix to the Bible, as they are interesting to read and perhaps could fill in some of the gaps in understanding certain scriptures, IMHO? This is a good site to save to your computer so as you can read these other books of the Apocrypha for their content. Also, I want to clarify that Apocrypha is the Protestant term and Deutrocanonical is the Catholic term used in reference to these sacred texts of the Old Testament. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/ Here is an example from the Septuagint from the book of Matthew, as an example, as to how many things quoted within the N.T. came from these ancient books in the O.T. which were later deleted from our version of the Bible, which StAnne also provided below with her explanation and cross-references: "The Septuagint was the chosen version because the NT writers frequently quoted from it. And while the roots of Christianity are indeed Jewish, there was no reason to choose the Jewish canon over what the NT writers used. These are just the Matthew ones - the long list goes on - at the link References in New Testament Order" Matthew
Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8 Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12 Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24 Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2 Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11 Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15 Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15 Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37 Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19 Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17 Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17 Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17 Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23 Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3 Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13 Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21 Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15 Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4 Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17 Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28 Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17 Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2 Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20 www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 16:01:49 GMT -5
I also find the books listed below of particular interest since Martin Luther didn't want them included the revised canon, although agreed upon at the Council of Trent much earlier in A.D. 393. These New Testament books were the following: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. In addition, there are references within I and II Peter which would seemingly point one to the Old Testament Deuterocanonical Books regarding a description of Purgatory ~ especially from Macabees I & II and the Book of Wisdom, also discussed previously (Page 6).
Hebrews Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 7:25s Hebrews 2:5 Sirach 17:17 Hebrews 4.12 Wisdom 18.15s Hebrews 4:12 Wisdom 7:22-30 Hebrews 5:6 1 Maccabees 14:41 Hebrews 7:22 Sirach 29:14ss Hebrews 11:5 Sirach 44:16 Hebrews 11:5 Wisdom 4:10 Hebrews 11:6 Wisdom 10:17 Hebrews 11.10 Wisdom 13.1 Hebrews 11:10 2 Maccabees 4:1 Hebrews 11:17 1 Maccabees 2:52 Hebrews 11:17 Sirach 44:20 Hebrews 11:27 Sirach 2:2 Hebrews 11:28 Wisdom 18:25 Hebrews 11:35 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42 Hebrews 12:4 2 Maccabees 13:14 Hebrews 12:9 2 Maccabees 3:24 Hebrews 12:12 Sirach 25:23 Hebrews 12:17 Wisdom 12:10 Hebrews 12:21 1 Maccabees 13:2 Hebrews 13:7 Sirach 33:19 Hebrews 13:7 Wisdom 2:17
James James 1:1 2 Maccabees 1:27 James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-20 James 1:19 Sirach 5:11 James 1:2 Sirach 2:1 James 1:2 Wisdom 3:4s James 1:21 Sirach 3:17 James 2:13 Tobit 4:10 James 2:23 Wisdom 7:27 James 3:2 Sirach 14:1 James 3:6 Sirach 5:13 James 3:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 James 3:10 Sirach 5:13 James 3:10 Sirach 28:12 James 3:13 Sirach 3:17 James 4:2 1 Maccabees 8:16 James 4:11 Wisdom 1:11 James 5:3 Judith 16:17 James 5:3 Sirach 29:10 James 5:4 Tobit 4:14 James 5:6 Wisdom 2:10 James 5:6 Wisdom 2:12 James 5:6 Wisdom 2:19
1 Peter 1 Peter 1:3 Sirach 16:12 1 Peter 1:7 Sirach 2:5 1 Peter 2:25 Wisdom 1:6 1 Peter 4:19 2 Maccabees 1:24 etc. 1 Peter 5:7 Wisdom 12:13
2 Peter 2 Peter 2:2 Wisdom 5:6 2 Peter 2:7 Wisdom 10:6 2 Peter 3:9 Sirach 35:19 2 Peter 3:18 Sirach 18:10
1 John 1 John 5:21 Baruch 5:72
Jude Jude 13 Wisdom 14:1
Revelation Revelation 1:18 Sirach 18:1 Revelation 2:10 2 Maccabees 13:14 Revelation 2:12 Wisdom 18:16 [15] Revelation 2:17 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 Revelation 4:11 Sirach 18:1 Revelation 4:11 Wisdom 1:14 Revelation 5:7 Sirach 1:8 Revelation 7:9 2 Maccabees 10:7 Revelation 8:1 Wisdom 18:14 Revelation 8:2 Tobit 12:15 Revelation 8:3 Tobit 12:12 Revelation 8:7 Sirach 39:29 Revelation 8:7 Wisdom 16:22 Revelation 9:3 Wisdom 16:9 Revelation 9:4 Sirach 44:18 etc. Revelation 11:19 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 Revelation 17:14 2 Maccabees 13:4 Revelation 18:2 Baruch 4:35 Revelation 19:1 Tobit 13:18 Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 3:25 Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 11:8 Revelation 19:16 2 Maccabees 13:4 Revelation 20:12s Sirach 16:12 Revelation 21:19s Tobit 13:17
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 16:16:08 GMT -5
Finally, here's the history behind the creation of the Biblical canon in the Western Hemisphere, which is an excerpt from the following:
en.wikipedia.org/Biblical_canon
Western Church[edit] Latin Fathers[edit] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[28] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[29] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[25] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[30] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[31] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[32] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[33] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[34] A Gutenberg Bible on display. Luther's canon[edit] Main article: Luther's canon Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists—such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus—and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide),[35] but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[36] In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha. Protestant canon[edit] Main article: Protestant Bible Protestants accept the Masoretic texts as the inspired Hebrew Bible, rather than the earlier Septuagint translation into Greek (from pre-Masoretic Hebrew), though many recognize the latter's wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the 1st century. They note that early Christians evidenced a knowledge of a canon of Scripture, based upon internal evidence, as well as by the existence of a list of Old Testament books by Melito of Sardis, compiled around 170 AD (see Melito's canon).[37] Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament—though these ideas aren't isolated to Protestant theology, but extend to or are derived from other Christian traditions:
1.Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2.Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century) as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament).
3.Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4.Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.[38] It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all of the books in the accepted canon, however, and one can point to writings that Protestants consider to be unscriptural, which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, most Protestants hold to the Jewish Tanakh for the Old Testament and the Roman Catholic canon for the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 21, 2013 16:37:50 GMT -5
If you're confused in any way by the above history lesson on the biblical canons, perhaps this Wiki article will offer more clarify on this matter entitled, " Why does the Protestant Bible have 66 books while the Catholic Bible has 73 books?" wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_Protestant_Bible_have_66_books_while_the_Catholic_Bible_has_73_booksThis is an excellent summary with all the objections that were raised over the establishment of the biblical canons from both the Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Unfortunately, I didn't find it until a few minutes ago. Would anybody care to comment on its contents?
|
|